NEW DELHI: On a protracted standing litigation between Mumbai and Bengaluru factions of Iskcon over management of Bengaluru temple, Supreme Court docket had saved the decision reserved for greater than a yr and gave judgment favouring the Bengaluru department in Could previous to the retirement of presiding choose Justice A S Oka. The bench of Justices Oka and A G Masih had put aside Karnataka Excessive Court docket's detailed judgment in Might 2011 giving management of the Bengaluru temple to the Mumbai department. Excessive Court docket had quashed the trial court docket decree of April 2009 which was in favour of the Bengaluru faction. After 14 years of the HC verdict and 6 months of Supreme Court docket judgment, pronounced per week earlier than Justice Oka's retirement, the events are actually nearly again to sq. one as a bench of Justices J Ok Maheshwari and A G Masih (who was a part of the bench led by Justice Oka) delivered a cut up verdict on the Mumbai department's plea for assessment of the Might 16 judgment. Justice Maheshwari discovered that the Mumbai department has made out a case for assessment of the judgment. In his two sentence order, he mentioned, “Purposes for itemizing the assessment petitions in open court docket are allowed. Discover be issued to the events.” This may imply Justice Maheshwari felt that the Mumbai department ought to be allowed to argue its case in open court docket stating the “error obvious” within the judgment. Alternatively, Justice Masih mentioned, “After having fastidiously gone by the assessment petitions, the judgment below assessment and the fabric annexed therewith, I'm glad there isn't a error obvious on the face of report or any advantage within the assessment petitions, warranting reconsideration of the judgment impugned. The assessment petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.” “In view of the divergent views… the assessment petitions be positioned earlier than the CJI for instructions and to do the needful,” the bench then mentioned. Iskcon-Mumbai had persistently maintained that the Bengaluru faction had by no means functioned as an impartial entity and had at all times operated below the Mumbai department, and therefore, the administration of the temple vested with the Mumbai faction. However the trial court docket had allowed the Bengaluru department's go well with, and given a decree in its favour over the administration of the temple affairs. HC had put aside the decree and dominated that the Bengaluru department functioned below the overarching management of Mumbai group.
